Whose side are you on? Players or owners?

my only issue with your points (and i'm still technically with the owners, but i'm trending towards the players) is implication that the owners and GM's could simply abstain from handing out cap-circumventing contracts. it's just not realistic, imo. you can either be competitive in free agency and partake or you can sit on the sidelines and watch your team and your fan base go into the tank. most teams would have been happy if these deals never existed, but a handful of them pissed in the punch bowl that everyone has to drink from.

I'd disagree here.

The Penguins are a perennial cup contender. Sure, this is a bad example because of Crosby/Malkin, but consider how well they've done and the lack of "poor" contracts on their roster. Look at James Neals' new contract and compare it to his peers in regards to salary. The Penguins do things the right way.

The LA Kings didn't have to go out and destroy their competitive balance. They made smart trades, drafted well, and won the Stanley Cup.

The Bruins spent a lot, but they orchestrated a team that works as a unit and won the Cup based solely off of systematic approach to the game and signing/retaining players that were positive for that system. Sure, they don't have a ton of cap space left, but they're an extremely marketable team that was put together in a very savvy way.

Having a high cap cost doesn't correlate to success rate in any way for me. If it did, the Maple Laughs would be competing for the Cup every year.

The problem, for me, and in the point my post, was giving a guy like Jeff Finger the contract he got. That was worthless and drove the market up in a bad way. Does Christian Erhoff need to be making that kind of money? That deal isn't signed because of market value or the need to compete with other GM's. It's terrible business, period. Paul Statsny at 6.6? Is that a joke? Bryz at 6.5?

The cap was supposed to dictate the market. Once a handful of GM's started to circumvent that, the market went straight to hell.

Sarcastic wrote:Jesse, the only thing I will say that it doesn't matter how we arrived here. Blaming either side, right or wrong, is irrelevant to a needed solution. You can believe owners did wrong with high contracts and that's fine. Even if it is, this simply means they now realize the errors of their ways and are trying to change how they run their franchise. That's a good thing.

Now, players were making upwards of 70% for a while. Is any pro-player fan putting any blame on players for that? Or is that the owners fault too? They can't win. They pay players too much, people blame them for over-spending. They want to cut salaries, they're greedy bastards.

Point is the league's current model isn't working and it doesn't even matter how we got to this, but they need to fix it because you can't have 3 teams support so many other franchises. Even if these rules are to keep some owners in check, which is, again, a good thing.

I don't see what the owners are trying to do as a money grab, but a correction to a business model that isn't working. Maybe 5 years from now, if things get rolling, the next CBA will give players a little extra. It can go either way, so I don't know why some players, as I read, are paranoid that for the CBA in 5 years, they'll try to cut salaries all over again. It doesn't make sense.

First off, let me say that I agree with the majority of what you said. I'm not blaming one side, I just tend to see one side's argument better than the other. As I said in my initial post, but of these sides are being completely and utterly ridiculous.

I think the Union's decision on the CBA is to have the younger players that will eventually become the face of the league the opportunity to speak up at the next meeting and see that their needs are met as well.

Think of a Nail Yakupov. He's 18. When the next CBA expires, even with an 8 year out-clause, he's 26, and deep into the prime of his career. I think they want to offer those guys the opportunity to secure their futures and things of that nature as well.

my only issue with your points (and i'm still technically with the owners, but i'm trending towards the players) is implication that the owners and GM's could simply abstain from handing out cap-circumventing contracts. it's just not realistic, imo. you can either be competitive in free agency and partake or you can sit on the sidelines and watch your team and your fan base go into the tank. most teams would have been happy if these deals never existed, but a handful of them pissed in the punch bowl that everyone has to drink from.

I'd disagree here.

The Penguins are a perennial cup contender. Sure, this is a bad example because of Crosby/Malkin, but consider how well they've done and the lack of "poor" contracts on their roster. Look at James Neals' new contract and compare it to his peers in regards to salary. The Penguins do things the right way.

as of this past summer, the penguins are as guilty as anyone. sid's contract is cap circumvention, plain and simple. if the CBA doesn't change, malkin will get one of these contracts as well. so right now, they aren't able to stay competitive without resorting to the piss in the punch bowl.

my only issue with your points (and i'm still technically with the owners, but i'm trending towards the players) is implication that the owners and GM's could simply abstain from handing out cap-circumventing contracts. it's just not realistic, imo. you can either be competitive in free agency and partake or you can sit on the sidelines and watch your team and your fan base go into the tank. most teams would have been happy if these deals never existed, but a handful of them pissed in the punch bowl that everyone has to drink from.

I'd disagree here.

The Penguins are a perennial cup contender. Sure, this is a bad example because of Crosby/Malkin, but consider how well they've done and the lack of "poor" contracts on their roster. Look at James Neals' new contract and compare it to his peers in regards to salary. The Penguins do things the right way.

as of this past summer, the penguins are as guilty as anyone. sid's contract is cap circumvention, plain and simple. if the CBA doesn't change, malkin will get one of these contracts as well. so right now, they aren't able to stay competitive without resorting to the piss in the punch bowl.

my only issue with your points (and i'm still technically with the owners, but i'm trending towards the players) is implication that the owners and GM's could simply abstain from handing out cap-circumventing contracts. it's just not realistic, imo. you can either be competitive in free agency and partake or you can sit on the sidelines and watch your team and your fan base go into the tank. most teams would have been happy if these deals never existed, but a handful of them pissed in the punch bowl that everyone has to drink from.

I'd disagree here.

The Penguins are a perennial cup contender. Sure, this is a bad example because of Crosby/Malkin, but consider how well they've done and the lack of "poor" contracts on their roster. Look at James Neals' new contract and compare it to his peers in regards to salary. The Penguins do things the right way.

as of this past summer, the penguins are as guilty as anyone. sid's contract is cap circumvention, plain and simple. if the CBA doesn't change, malkin will get one of these contracts as well. so right now, they aren't able to stay competitive without resorting to the piss in the punch bowl.

You kind of ignored the rest of my post.

To compare it Kovalchuk's contract is a little ridiculous. Kovalchuk makes 1Mil in 3 straight years of his deal. IIRC, Crosby's goes to 3, all at the end of the contract.

One contract to the consensus (health pending) best player in the world doesnt' make the Penguins a pariah. That's a really large leap. Again, you discounted the fact that I also brought up James Neal, Letang, etc. Shero has done things the right way. Period. This doesn't make that any different.

To compare it Kovalchuk's contract is a little ridiculous. Kovalchuk makes 1Mil in 3 straight years of his deal. IIRC, Crosby's goes to 3, all at the end of the contract.

One contract to the consensus (health pending) best player in the world doesnt' make the Penguins a pariah. That's a really large leap. Again, you discounted the fact that I also brought up James Neal, Letang, etc. Shero has done things the right way. Period. This doesn't make that any different.

well sure, kovalchuk's deal is in a league of its own, but crosby's certainly is in the same ballpark.

but let's reset for a second, because i misread your original post. you said "They've circumvented their own cap, repeatedly". I read it as that they circumvented THE cap (which is how i ultimately brought up crosby). one of your issues is that the owners are responsible for their hardships by handing out bad contracts, right? my argument to that comes back to the penguins. they spend money the right way - we can agree on that. but they're one of the teams who believe in this lockout. because even though they spend well and have great attendance, they can't reliably turn a profit. same with L.A. and Boston (teams you mentioned). they are well-run teams with what appears to be maxed out revenue - and they aren't making enough money.

this is why i've generally supported the owners throughout this - because there are a bunch teams who should have a reliable profit, but can't because of revenue allotment. i believe that's what this lockout is about. not parise/suter and signing 3rd liners to 1st line money.

To compare it Kovalchuk's contract is a little ridiculous. Kovalchuk makes 1Mil in 3 straight years of his deal. IIRC, Crosby's goes to 3, all at the end of the contract.

One contract to the consensus (health pending) best player in the world doesnt' make the Penguins a pariah. That's a really large leap. Again, you discounted the fact that I also brought up James Neal, Letang, etc. Shero has done things the right way. Period. This doesn't make that any different.

well sure, kovalchuk's deal is in a league of its own, but crosby's certainly is in the same ballpark.

but let's reset for a second, because i misread your original post. you said "They've circumvented their own cap, repeatedly". I read it as that they circumvented THE cap (which is how i ultimately brought up crosby). one of your issues is that the owners are responsible for their hardships by handing out bad contracts, right? my argument to that comes back to the penguins. they spend money the right way - we can agree on that. but they're one of the teams who believe in this lockout. because even though they spend well and have great attendance, they can't reliably turn a profit. same with L.A. and Boston (teams you mentioned). they are well-run teams with what appears to be maxed out revenue - and they aren't making enough money.

this is why i've generally supported the owners throughout this - because there are a bunch teams who should have a reliable profit, but can't because of revenue allotment. i believe that's what this lockout is about. not parise/suter and signing 3rd liners to 1st line money.

But also in regards to Crosbys contract the penguins are forced, to give a fair market deal to Sid by playing the loophole game.

Add in Malkin and in a few years the Pens would be paying out $7 or so million above what the actual cap hit is.

That is why getting the stipulations right is such a big deal. Even if everyone plays it mostly fair it still hurts too many teams.

Don't know how anybody could blame the players.Owners making record revenue yet not only wanted a massive cap drop but the players to rollback existing contracts?How can you ask that when you are making record new revenue?

Players gave back a lot, it's really Jeremy Jacobs, Ed Snider, Ted Leonsis, Craig Leopold, and Murray to blame.Really, Jacobs is the worst of the bunch.Bettman as well whose goal with Jacobs is to union bust and humilate Fehr.

Bathgate wrote:Right now it's 81% to 19% in favor of the owners with 54 voters. Is this enough of a representative sample of passionate NHL hockey fans to conclude that they are overwhelmingly in favor of the owners? Should the PA take notice?

Its not representative. Look at any national poll. Theyre all pretty even and mostly siding with the players.

Bathgate wrote:Right now it's 81% to 19% in favor of the owners with 54 voters. Is this enough of a representative sample of passionate NHL hockey fans to conclude that they are overwhelmingly in favor of the owners? Should the PA take notice?

Its not representative. Look at any national poll. Theyre all pretty even and mostly siding with the players.

This is pure speculation, but I feel like more "die-hard" type of fans favor with the owners. Those who watch every game, get annoyed by average person watching a Pens game yelling to shoot every second, etc.. have followed this situation closer and generally feel based on that knowledge that NHLPA has been a bit unrealistic. I feel like the casual fan who hasn't paid any attention will side with the owners under such logic of "millionaire vs. billionaires, might as well favor the millionaires. They make a ton but not as much as those greedy 1%er wall street guys making 100's of millions!"

Purely anecdotal evidence, but from my experiences it seems like there are different type of fans supporting different sides. Might explain LGP favoring the owners, but I could be wrong

IanMoran wrote:I feel like the casual fan who hasn't paid any attention will side with the owners under such logic of "millionaire vs. billionaires, might as well favor the millionaires. They make a ton but not as much as those greedy 1%er wall street guys making 100's of millions!"

I have yet to see anyone make that sort of idiotic statement. I also feel a little offended by your insinuation that only casual, less knowlegdeable fans could possibly side with the players.

IanMoran wrote:I feel like the casual fan who hasn't paid any attention will side with the owners under such logic of "millionaire vs. billionaires, might as well favor the millionaires. They make a ton but not as much as those greedy 1%er wall street guys making 100's of millions!"

I have yet to see anyone make that sort of idiotic statement. I also feel a little offended by your insinuation that only casual, less knowlegdeable fans could possibly side with the players.

While i dont agree as i know plenty of dedicated, knowledgeable fans that side with each side, it doesnt really matter. Not to any of us or owners/players. No matter what people want to think, the cba negotiation isnt about fans.

IanMoran wrote:I feel like the casual fan who hasn't paid any attention will side with the owners under such logic of "millionaire vs. billionaires, might as well favor the millionaires. They make a ton but not as much as those greedy 1%er wall street guys making 100's of millions!"

I have yet to see anyone make that sort of idiotic statement. I also feel a little offended by your insinuation that only casual, less knowlegdeable fans could possibly side with the players.

While i dont agree as i know plenty of dedicated, knowledgeable fans that side with each side, it doesnt really matter. Not to any of us or owners/players. No matter what people want to think, the cba negotiation isnt about fans.

IanMoran wrote:I feel like the casual fan who hasn't paid any attention will side with the owners under such logic of "millionaire vs. billionaires, might as well favor the millionaires. They make a ton but not as much as those greedy 1%er wall street guys making 100's of millions!"

I also feel a little offended by your insinuation that only casual, less knowlegdeable fans could possibly side with the players.

Yes, this is clearly what I stated / was the main purpose of my post. Nice takeaway

Assuming you aren't just being argumentative ,I was clearly stating that on average those who were more casual generally side with players from what I've noticed. I also stated multiple times I meant no harm by my post "pure speculation" "anecdotal evidence," etc... To claim you were "offended" by that is a little bit much.

I don't doubt that there are many, many people who are far more knowledgable than I that support the players more (hell, i've seen that on this board).

IanMoran wrote:I feel like the casual fan who hasn't paid any attention will side with the owners under such logic of "millionaire vs. billionaires, might as well favor the millionaires. They make a ton but not as much as those greedy 1%er wall street guys making 100's of millions!"

I would say this poll is pretty representative of the kind of responses I've been reading on the web throughout this ordeal. I even said a month ago in the other thread it feels like 90% of people feel it's time for players to sign the damn thing and play. Maybe it's not 90, but a clear majority. And I think it has only moved more toward the owners after the last proposal that was really really good and it felt like players were happy to sign it but, one day later when Fehr re-inserted himself, ultimated rejected. Just my opinion.

Do we have to keep on going over this? The owners balked when Fehr was brought back in. They wanted to go behind his back to get a deal, which isn't exactly bargaining in good faith. Why are people blaming the players for bringing in their representation?

I'd blame the owners for that. You can't just say "Here, we'll give you this, but we don't want your legal representation to be here while you read it." That just reeks of poor negotiating.

MRandall25 wrote:Do we have to keep on going over this? The owners balked when Fehr was brought back in. They wanted to go behind his back to get a deal, which isn't exactly bargaining in good faith. Why are people blaming the players for bringing in their representation?

I'd blame the owners for that. You can't just say "Here, we'll give you this, but we don't want your legal representation to be here while you read it." That just reeks of poor negotiating.

Come on it was a stupid move by the owners, Fehr had all thoes guys totally prepped on how to act and what to do. "Sure guys make it seem like you really want a deal, and the owners will start throwing concessions your way. Once you get these major areas touched up on i will insist i am back in and i can take what they give us and ask for a whole bunch more."

MRandall25 wrote:Do we have to keep on going over this? The owners balked when Fehr was brought back in. They wanted to go behind his back to get a deal, which isn't exactly bargaining in good faith. Why are people blaming the players for bringing in their representation?

I'd blame the owners for that. You can't just say "Here, we'll give you this, but we don't want your legal representation to be here while you read it." That just reeks of poor negotiating.

Come on it was a stupid move by the owners, Fehr had all thoes guys totally prepped on how to act and what to do. "Sure guys make it seem like you really want a deal, and the owners will start throwing concessions your way. Once you get these major areas touched up on i will insist i am back in and i can take what they give us and ask for a whole bunch more."

Yes, we have to go over this and all the other things you say, time and time again, because those are only your opinions and other people have theirs. So just because you say something 5 times, it doesn't mean it sinks in anywhere.

The owners balked because they gave in on pretty much everything except for contract length and variance (that they should stick with no matter what) and it still wasn't good enough. It seemed like it was, player reps seemed happy, but then Fehr comes back in a day later and blows it up. That's it. If not for that maniac, we would be watching hockey right now.

My god. Behind his back. What does that even mean? What does it matter? So this is all so Fehr could get 'credit' for signing the deal? I'm telling you. You look at his philosophy on the salary cap. Look at what HE did to baseball. Certain teams have 4x the payroll of others. That he has any people who still defend him is pretty damn crazy.

So you think it's fair for owners, well versed in business and business law, to "negotiate" with players who have little to no clue what they're doing?

Sorry, there's no way you can convince me it wasn't a **** move by the owners to try to get the players to sign a deal without their legal representation. That's "negotiating in bad faith". It has nothing to do with Fehr "winning". It really has nothing to do with Fehr. It was a PR tactic by the owners to try and strong-arm the players without their legal representation in the room.

Sarcastic wrote:The owners balked because they gave in on pretty much everything WHEN COMPARING TO THE FIRST LEAGUE OFFER except for contract length and variance (that they should stick with no matter what) and it still wasn't good enough.

Fixed that for you..

If the league didn't want fehr involved, that points to one of:* the owners have a goal of defeating and removing him* the owners don't trust that ferh is responsibly representing the players and he will push to "win" instead of resolving* the owners feel without legal representation they can "trick" the PA into a deal

Can anyone think of another reason (open question here)?

I will assume #3 isn't the case (assume = hope) and will dismiss it but i wanted to note it above.

IF point #2, i think the owners really cannot do anything about that and have to let the PA come to that conclusion and handle themselves. Not saying this is the case...just saying it isn't a matter for owners to push on.

IF point #1, owners really have to look in the mirror and determine what they want...what is more important. If they could have a season but fehr stays, is that better than no season and fehr gone? What are the implications of either?

I think it should be generally accepted that legal representation would be present at ALL meetings...just one of the 3 points above appears to be in play (in my mind).

I can't see how anyone could agree with the players, or, Fehr, since I think most of the players would have signed the deal they almost had 3 weeks ago.

Lets take this to extremes to illustrate it clearly.

1. If Fehr gets what he want: No cap, no length restrictions, nothing that stops the Rangers from offering Sid/Malkin/Oviechkin etc 20 millions / Year for 10 years etc, what do we get then? A league where 3-4 teams (NY, Leafs, Bruins, Filthy?) have a real possibility to win, and probably a few teams have folded in a few years.

Or

2. If the Owners get what they want. 30 to 32? teams, fairly healthy, no player makes more that 8 mill. "All" teams have at least, financially, the possibility to win every year.

Yes, I said, to the extreme, but still, it illustrates what the two sides want.

And, in the end, off course the owners want to make money, but to make money you need an exciting league, and of the two choices we have here, the 2nd choice is the league I would like to watch. The Fehr-version of the league, we had before -04. And if we get there again, maybe we can have another defender win our scoring league for the Pens, just like Tärnström did then.